Ethanol myth blasted in new Science mag - Top Stocks Blog - MSN Money
 
Search Top Stocks:

Ethanol myth blasted in new Science mag

Posted Feb 11 2008, 02:54 AM by Jon Markman
Rating:

Corn-based ethanol production is sure to go down as one of the greatest mistakes ever in U.S. energy policy, yet it is so heavily embedded in election-year politics it just won't go away.

The government's recent move to boost ethanol production -- embedded in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007  -- panders to Midwestern and Southern farm-state electorates that are influential in presidential races, yet will end up costing the nation billions more than it purports to save.

I  wrote about this scam back in October in a column titled, "Shuck the ethanol and let solar shine," but apparently for some reason my expression of outrage was not enough to prevent Congress from passing a law in late December that will cost taxpayers as much as $550 billion over the next four years.

Now scientists have finally completed research that shows ethanol is not only bad business but also bad for the environment. According to news reports, the latest issue of Science magazine highlights studies showing that biofuels produce more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels when all of their production inputs are accounted for. 

Two studies shows that replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades. The studies show that switchgrass, an alternative to ethanol that's more weed than plant, would boost emissions by 50%.

How? It's because, as I described in my piece, so much energy is required to fertilize, harvest and refine the fuels. It's also because the growing of fuel plants replaces the growing of vegetation that actually consumes harmful greenhouse gases.

The research at Princeton and the Nature Conservancy found that an intensified push to grow fuel crops would also rob the world of biodiversity as it would require the clearing of vast tracts of pristine rainforest in South America and Africa. In total, the researchers said they discovered it would take as much as 300 years to pay off the carbon debt caused by biofuels' initial cultivation.

Luckily, some public officials are waking up to the danger of ethanol. The United Nations recently tasked a panel to evaluate biofuels sustainability, and there are rumblings that the next session of Congress will look at the possibility of already reforming the recently passed bill. 

Investors meanwhile should continue to avoid the ethanol-based stocks, including popular names like Pacific Ethanol and recent initial public offering BioFuel Energy.

Comments

 

. . . and by the end product to your tank it will cost more than crude oil is to refine!  How about solar or hydogen...now there's a thought!

But if you had a fuel additive that increased mileage and reduced emissions with any fuel then the Ethanol product might be a little more worth while wouldnt it?

CORN BASE ETHANOL PRODUCTION IS NOT GOOD TO ENVIRONMENT PLUS TO OUR CONSUMERS  IT WILL INCREASE FOOD PRICES THAT PRODUCTS CAME FROM CORN BASE PRODUCTIONS . GET THE ETHANOL PRODUCTION OUT OF SUGAR CANE THUS IT WILL NOT REALLY AFFECT IN THE FUTURE, LIKE BRAZIL DID IN THIRE COUNTRY.

When you include the lateral costs of producing a Toyota Prius you join the arena as just described for ethanol. What's the old saying " there's no such thing as a free lunch".

Plants remove carbon from the atmosphere. Burning the plant releases that same carbon back to the atmosphere therefore there is no net gain in carbon when using biofuels. Switchgrass is grown on marginal land that is too wet to support food crops. With switchgrass we can bring back needed wetlands and also have a useful fuel source. Using fossil fuels is releasing carbon that has been safely stored for millions of years.

Sounds like another plea from a supporter of big oil.  If you address the emissions from start to finish to get the oil from the ground to the pump you would find a HUGE increase vs that of bio fuel.  This is no different than justifying why the oil companies shouldn't build refineries and saying it is ok that they are running at 98% copacity to control supply.  As long as you are in the pocket of big business, why not ease the mpg requirements, we don't need to get a whole 25 mpg!  That just is expecting too much of our auto makers.  10 or 12 mpg sounds more realistic.  Why is China already at a much higher mpg standard?  While we are at it, why not let the oil, auto, and energy companies elect our leaders and elimiate public voting all together?  We the people are just here to keep your pockets full, not to speak our minds.

Is there also a safety hazard ethanol may pose to humans (i.e. isn't that the harmful ingredient used in "high grade" perfumes, which causes disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system?  Yah... maybe go for solar and/or wind.. or something else?

Does hemp require the same amt of energy that " is required fertilize, harvest and refine the fuels"? I don't see it mentioned here.

Why if the US produces 40% of the corn already grown in the world would there need to be vast tracts of rainforest cleared?  If I'm not mistaken plants consume carbon dioxide in the photosyntheses process. Won't growing more corn consume more carbon dioxide?

The problem is with corn ethanol.  Brazil uses sugar based ethanol which does not have these problems but the corn lobby is paying our politicians to make sure we make corn ethanol and not import sugar to make cleaner, more efficient sugar ethanol.  Just one more way we (the middle class) get screwed.  Vote Ron Paul.  

Send a Comment

Comments must be directly related to the blog entry. Comments with offensive language will be deleted. Your e-mail address won't be displayed.

(please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):